BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

More documents

Recommendations

Info

164 7 Annex 7.2.7 ETBE from sugar beet versus fossil MTBE for transportation: relative impact differences between biofuels and fossil fuels 200% 100% 0% -100% Use of fossil fuels Greenhouse effect How to interpret the diagram Ozone Depletion by N2O Acidification Eutrophication Summer smog Human toxicity France Germany Netherlands Europe Environmental advantages and disadvantages of ETBE compared to MTBE for each country involved as well as for Europe are shown by relative differences between the biofuels and the fossil fuel: (biofuel – fossil fuel) / fossil fuel. The zero line indicates the level for fossil fuels. Therefore negative values indicate advantages for ETBE and positive ones represent advantages for MTBE. For example, assuming the production and combustion of fossil fuel causes an emission of 1 kg of N2O (Ozone depletion), then a value of -100 % means no net N2O emissions in the case of the biofuel, 0 % means 1 kg N2O (i.e. the same as the fossil fuel), 100 % means 2 kg N2O and so on. Remarks and conclusions For the categories use of fossil fuels and greenhouse effect all country results are very close. Especially regarding eutrophication there are much greater differences. For eutrophication Germany stands out with an exceptionally high impact by using the defaults from the data collection guideline for nitrate emissions to water; for the Netherlands a more complex model was used which gave higher nitrate emissions from fallow than from the crop. Most of the other differences are rather small and to be regarded as less significant.
7.2 Comparisons between the countries for each biofuel 165 7.2.8 Traditional firewood versus light oil for residential heating: relative impact differences related to fossil fuels 200% 100% 0% -100% Use of fossil fuels Greenhouse effect How to interpret the diagram Ozone Depletion by N2O Acidification Eutrophication Summer smog Human toxicity Austria Italy Switzerland Europe Environmental advantages and disadvantages of firewood compared to light oil for each country involved as well as for Europe are shown by relative differences between the biofuels and the fossil fuel: (biofuel – fossil fuel) / fossil fuel. The zero line indicates the level for fossil fuels. Therefore negative values indicate advantages for firewood and positive ones represent advantages for light oil. For example, assuming the production and combustion of fossil fuel causes an emission of 1 kg of N2O (Ozone depletion), then a value of -100 % means no net N2O emissions in the case of the biofuel, 0 % means 1 kg N2O (i.e. the same as the fossil fuel), 100 % means 2 kg N2O and so on. Remarks and conclusions Regarding the parameters use of fossil fuels, greenhouse effect and ozone depletion, the results are similar for all three countries. Regarding eutrophication, Switzerland shows a very high value, which is caused by an very high NOX emissions of the combustion. The differences for acidification and summer smog among the countries and among the biofuel and fossil fuels are rather small and to be regarded as less significant.
Page 1 and 2:
BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FI
Page 3 and 4:
Contents Executive summary.........
Page 5:
Contents III 5.3.2 Variation in col
Page 8 and 9:
2 Executive summary Table 1 Investi
Page 10 and 11:
4 Executive summary Result of the c
Page 12 and 13:
6 Executive summary Economic aspect
Page 15 and 16:
1 Goals, target groups and general
Page 17:
1 Goals, target groups and general
Page 20 and 21:
14 2 Biofuels under study The resul
Page 22 and 23:
16 2 Biofuels under study 2.3 Life
Page 24 and 25:
18 2 Biofuels under study 2.3.3 Mis
Page 26 and 27:
20 2 Biofuels under study 2.4.2 Sun
Page 28 and 29:
22 2 Biofuels under study 2.5 Life
Page 30 and 31:
24 2 Biofuels under study 2.5.3 Bio
Page 33 and 34:
3 Life cycle assessment of biofuels
Page 35 and 36:
3.2 Scope definition of the investi
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
3.3 Inventory analysis 35 then. Eve
Page 43 and 44:
3.3 Inventory analysis 37 using the
Page 45 and 46:
3.4 Impact assessment 39 energy cro
Page 47 and 48:
3.4 Impact assessment 41 The IPCC p
Page 49 and 50:
3.5 Interpretation 43 of the indivi
Page 51 and 52:
3.5 Interpretation 45 Fossil fuel p
Page 53 and 54:
4 Environmental results: presentati
Page 55 and 56:
4.1 Introduction 49 case excluding
Page 57 and 58:
4.2 European results: biofuels comp
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
4.3 European results: biofuels for
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
4.4 Summary of country specific res
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83:
4.5 Summary of comparisons between
Page 86 and 87:
80 5 Socio-economic and political a
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
90 6 Conclusions and recommendation
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 103 and 104:
7 Annex 7.1 Country specific life c
Page 105 and 106:
7.1 Country specific life cycle com
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120: 7.1 Country specific life cycle com
Page 165 and 166: 7.2 Comparisons between the countri
Page 169: 7.2 Comparisons between the countri
Page 175 and 176: 7.4 List of authors and addresses 1
Page 181 and 182: 7.5 Data availability 175 7.5 Data
Page 183 and 184: 7.6 Literature 177 Hauschild and We
show all

BIOENERGY FOR EUROPE: WHICH ONES FIT BEST?

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?